Do you think conservatives will ever stop trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare? (Reagan, legal)

[GoatTheKing]

I was watching a video of Ronald Reagan a few days ago, from 1964, and he said something along the lines of "Now, we're not going to get rid of Social Security, but it would be best if we turned it into a purely voluntary program where smart people could direct their money. And all this talk of government in health care is the road to socialism! And also, Democrats are going to bankrupt our children because of the deficit!" The health care changes he was warning against were ultimately, of course, Medicare. Notably, he didn't repeal either of those programs as president 20 years later.

But it got me thinking. Conservatives started kvetching about social security about 10 seconds after Franklin Roosevelt put the program in place. Their arguments were essentially the same arguments Reagan made in 1964, which have gone on to be the same arguments that Bush was trotting out when he was going to privatize Social Security back in 2005. And, once again, the public smacked him down hard over it.

I have to say, the fact that they've been making the exact same arguments about these programs for almost 80 years made my ears perks up, almost like they mainly want to get rid of these programs, instead of patching them and making them work, because they oppose them purely on ideological grounds.

And now we're back to the topic again, with Paul Ryan and the voucher stuff for Medicare, and the large boost in Obama's polling numbers with the elderly in Ohio and Florida as a result.

Will this awkward dance between voters and conservatives ever end with conservatives giving up? I'm sure some of you are convinced that it will end with hyperinflation and government collapse and etc etc etc, which is what conservatives have been saying for 80 years, and that's fine, but hypothetically, supposing that doesn't happen - will there ever come a point where conservatives throw in the towel and accept that, basically, the broad electorate simply violently disagrees with them and always will?

[Memphis1979]

Social security is the great program of socialism. Its one in which people like, and it makes possible other socialist programs, like Medicare.

As such, republicans hate them, much like liberals hate the "Bush tax cuts".

So no, they will always try and get rid of it. Social security being made voluntary would end it, and they know it. But 70% of people support social security, which is why its somewhat protected.

But Medicare is another animal. It was put into place because elderly Americans couldn't afford insurance, or find it at all, because of their high risk. It will take up all of the federal budget if nothing changes. Just to much. It has to be restrained and it needs massive reform. Is a voucher the answer? Most think not. Raise the benefit age? What about 65 year olds?

Really since they can't be denied coverage, why do we need it anymore?

[tinman01]

Yes the day that people are given the choice how Social security is invested. The day that people are allowed to control SS as an investment. The day the fed stops borrowing from SS and wasting said dollars. The day that The money individuals pay in is no longer used to subsidize those who pay in much less.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Yes the day that people are given the choice how Social security is invested. The day that people are allowed to control SS as an investment. The day the fed stops borrowing from SS and wasting said dollars. The day that The money individuals pay in is no longer used to subsidize those who pay in much less.

Actually the last sentence is how the program is set up. Retire at a given age with basic needs covered, and because more people will die early, they subsidize those that do live longer.

The social security funds pay for wars, Medicare, tax cuts, etc. Everything government does.

[ambient]

No social security. You save up what you save up during life, and then when you're old and it runs out, you die.

No medicare. You save up what you save up during life, and you juggle the cost with what you're also spending on social security. And when you get sick and it runs out, you die.

YAY, AMERICA!!!!!

[Taratova]

Social Security is a morally upright program to take care of those who are old.. Romney wants to make changes to Social Security. Romney wants to cut the rate to the wealthy americans who get social security and also give people a choice.

Obama is blind to the problems of Social Security going bankrupt if something is not changed. Better to get a check under Romney than no check under Obama.

[GregW]

Most politicians are blind to the simple way to fix Social Security Income Insurance so it will last indefinitely.

First take the upper limit off taxable income to include all income from all sources legal or not. Second limit payments to people with other incomes in excess of the 80th percentile. Increased income pool and reduced payments will result in a much lower tax rate. Continue the pay as you go system by eliminating trust funds and keep the system out of the hands of the Wall Street speculators and gamblers.

Also increase government investment in the handkerchief and tissue industry to take advantage of the increased demand by the crying and whining wealthy.

[Quick Enough]

I would like to see Social Security phased out. Americans can do much better then what SS returns.

[desertdetroiter]

To paraphrase Andy Stone in the movie Casino: "Social Security and Medicare ain't goin' nowhere!"

Conservatives can keep on with their pipe dream, but simply put, those programs are here to stay, so Conservatives might as well move on to something else.

[whogo]

At some point liberals better explain how they are going to fund Medicare and Medicaid.